The scholarship of teaching and learning: A scoping review protocol
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.2.12Keywords:
scoping review protocol, SoTL, scoping review, state of the fieldAbstract
The diversity of scholars, teachers, and practitioners in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is a strength but also makes it a complex field to understand and navigate, and perhaps even more complex to contribute to, despite its youth. Beyond the ongoing efforts to define and theorize the field, SoTL needs a rigorous inventory taking and analysis that documents its highly traveled questions, topics, methods, and areas where more work needs to be done, as well as who is doing the work. We describe here our protocol for conducting a scoping review to map the range and nature of published SoTL projects. A scoping review is a first step in gathering information on areas that warrant deeper exploration. It will also allow SoTL to more fully and accurately be represented as a practice, an act of inquiry, and a type of research into teaching and learning.
Metrics
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Booth, S., & Woollacott, L. C. (2018). On the constitution of SoTL: Its domains and contexts. Higher Education, 75(3), 537-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0156-7
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
CELatElon. (February 6, 2014). Value of contextualized work and aggregated SoTL data. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/cJYJuelKfv8
Chick, N.L. (2018). A SoTL Guide. Retrieved from https://nancychick.wordpress.com/sotl-guide/
Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., O’Brien, K., Straus, S., Tricco, A., Perrier, L., . . . Moher, D. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291-1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
Daudt, H. M. L., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13. Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48
Divan, A., Ludwig, L., Matthews, K., Motley, P., & Tomljenovic-Berube, A. (2017). Survey of research approaches utilised in the scholarship of teaching and learning publications. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 5(2), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.2.3
Fanghanel, J., Pritchard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2015). Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study. Literature review. York: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/defining-and-supporting-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-sotl-sector-wide-study
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 121-125. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2005). The advancement of learning: Building the teaching commons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5. Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Liberati, A., Altman, D., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P., Ioannidis, J., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
Lodahl, J. B., & Gordon., G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37(1), 57–72 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2093493
MacMillan, M. (2018) The SoTL literature review: Exploring new territory. In N. L. Chick (Ed.), SoTL in Action: Illuminating Critical Moments of Practice (pp. 23-31). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4. Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Baldini Soares, C., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2017). Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute. Retrieved from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/
Poole, G. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), The Scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. 135-151.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., . . . Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
Simmons, N., Abrahamson, E., Deshler, J., Kensington-Miller, B., Manarin, K., Morón-García, . . . Renc-Roe, J. (2013). Conflicts and configurations in a liminal Space: SoTL scholars’ identity development. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 1(2), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.2.9
Tight, M. (2017). Tracking the scholarship of teaching and learning. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 2(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2017.1390690
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., . . . Straus, S. E. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16. Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Nancy Chick, Lorelli Nowell, Bartlomiej Lenart
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
